Phylogenetic Analysis of Pelecaniformes (Aves) Based on Osteological Data: Implications for Waterbird Phylogeny and Fossil Calibration Studies

) were also assessed. The antiquity of these taxa and their purported status as stem members of extant families makes them valuable for studies of higher-level avian diversification. (sister taxon to Phalacrocoracidae). These relationships are invariant when ‘backbone’ constraints based on recent avian phylogenies are imposed.Relationships of extant pelecaniforms inferred from morphology are more congruent with molecular phylogenies than previously assumed, though notable conflicts remain. The phylogenetic position of the Plotopteridae implies that wing-propelled diving evolved independently in plotopterids and penguins, representing a remarkable case of convergent evolution. Despite robust support for the placement of fossil taxa representing key calibration points, the successive outgroup relationships of several “stem fossil + crown family” clades are variable and poorly supported across recent studies of avian phylogeny. Thus, the impact these fossils have on inferred patterns of temporal diversification depends heavily on the resolution of deep nodes in avian phylogeny

The skull of the Miocene Spheniscus urbinai

Spheniscus urbinai represents one of four extinct Spheniscus species from the Cenozoic of southern South America, known from several poorly described diversely complete skulls and postcranial elements. Here, we present a review of the cranial osteology of all known specimens (collected in Argentina, Chile, and Peru), including a paleoneurological analysis using CT scans, and an exploration of its cranial pneumaticity compared to other extinct and living seabirds. Our results show that among Spheniscus species, S. urbinai exhibits slightly greater cranial pneumaticity than the living species. Additionally, we confirm previous findings which indicate that the marked reduction of cranial pneumaticity—which is characteristic of living penguins—occurred early during the Eocene (as observed in the Antarctic penguin MLP 12-I-20-1, but not in the coeval Anthropornis).Fil: Acosta Hospitaleche, Carolina Ileana Alicia. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Departamento Científico de Paleontología de Vertebrados; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Paulina Carabajal, Ariana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Yury Yáñez, Roberto. Universidad de Chile; Chil

A cost-benefit analysis of afforestation as a climate change adaptation measure to reduce flood risk

Increased river flood frequency is considered a major risk under climate change. Protecting vulnerable communities is, therefore, a key public policy objective. Natural flood management measures (NFM) ‐ notably re‐afforestation on hillslope and floodplain ‐ are increasingly discussed as cost‐effective means for providing flood regulation, particularly when considering ecosystem services other than flood regulation. However, studies that place flood benefits alongside other benefits are rare, potentially causing uncertainty in policy decision‐making. This paper provides a cost‐benefit analysis of the impacts of afforestation on peak river flows under UKCP09 climate change projections, and on additional ecosystem services in a rural catchment in Scotland. We find significant positive net present values (NPV) for all alternatives considered. However, benefits are dominated by ecosystem services other than flood regulation, with values related to climate regulation, aesthetic appeal, recreation and water quality contributing to a high positive NPV. The investment in riparian woodland (under low and central climate change scenarios) delivers a positive NPV alone when considering flood regulation benefits only. The case study suggests that afforestation as a sole NFM measure provides a positive NPV only in some cases but highlights the importance of identifying and quantifying additional ecosystem co‐benefits